Endangered species listed through lawsuits and petitions at greater risk.

The ubiquitous image of a lone polar bear lumbering across melting sheets of ice has come to represent the plight of endangered species everywhere. Surprisingly, despite the symbolic role that this species plays, citizens had to fight hard to get polar bears listed as “threatened” under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA). Although that decision was controversial, a new tally shows that citizen-driven ESA listings are just as valid as those identified by the pros.

One of the provisions of the ESA allows citizens to petition or sue the US Fish and Wildlife Service in order to get protection for a species or subspecies; the agency then conducts status reviews on the suggestions that appear to be warranted, then decide which deserve to be listed.

Critics of this controversial provision claim that most of the petitions and lawsuits are motivated by political interests, such as the intention to halt development. Detractors suggest that this stipulation of the ESA is not only unnecessary, but that it prevents money and resources from being used to protect the most vulnerable species.

A new study in Science used data from federal reports to determine whether listed species identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service face greater biological threats than those listed as a result of citizen petitions or lawsuits. After examining the data for more than 900 species, the researchers found that species proposed via either petitions or lawsuits actually face greater biological threats than those identified by the federal agency.

Not surprisingly, petitioned and litigated species tend to be in greater conflict with development plans than those identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service; litigated species, in particular, are especially vulnerable. Habitat destruction is one of the major sources of biological threat, and this may explain why citizen-initiated species listed under the ESA tend to be particularly vulnerable.

So, while it may be true that political, rather than environmental, interests are driving some of these petitions and lawsuits, the citizen-initiative provision of the ESA does help identify species that are in jeopardy. In fact, since these species tend to be particularly imperiled, some might claim that citizens actually do a better job of choosing species for the list than do federal agencies. The researchers chalk this up to the fact that some citizens—such as scientists and non-profit groups—have more specialized knowledge about the local habitats and subspecies than the Fish and Wildlife Service.

However, this provision of the ESA is sure to remain contentious. Developers are constantly lamenting construction delays and projects halted due to petitioned species, and recently, groups have started creating controversial “bulk petitions,” some of which ask the government to list more than 600 species at once. For now, citizens appear to be doing a good job identifying at-risk species, but political, economic, and environmental motives may change that dynamic in the future.

Kate Shaw Yoshida
Kate is a science writer for Ars Technica. She recently earned a dual Ph.D. in Zoology and Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior from Michigan State University, studying the social behavior of wild spotted hyenas. Emailkate.shaw@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KateYoshida

Not surprising... some people do things because they are paid to do them. Others do them because they are passionate about them and will do them even without pay. Not that this always means better results (as in the commentary of the article about people filing for political reasons) but it's not uncommon that even among people paid to do their job, those who do the job also because they love it generally do a better job.

just because a species may go extinct doesn't mean we want to keep it. I can think of lots of species we would be better off without.

Humans, for example? Surely, you jest.

Yeah, the planet would be better off without humans and I'm pretty sure Mother Nature is planning our extinction just as she did for the dinosaurs when they became a problem (too much poop created greenhouse effect almost as bad as we do).

Another plausible contributing factor is that the FWS may be hesitant to make unilateral judgements regarding politically controversial species. The petition process puts their feet to the fire, and also makes them look more like an independent third party evaluating the merits of the activists claims rather than be seen as an activist regulator themselves.

just because a species may go extinct doesn't mean we want to keep it. I can think of lots of species we would be better off without.

This would be fine if natural selection is the only player without human involved. Let the strong survive. Please name a few endangered species you think we can eliminate without causing problem to the food chain.

"The researchers chalk this up to the fact that some citizens—such as scientists and non-profit groups—have more specialized knowledge about the local habitats and subspecies than the Fish and Wildlife Service."

Citizens are a good source for local habitats because for the most part it is the citizens who are living around the local habitats. Any researcher in field biology knows that locals can be a great source of knowledge of the area. This is precisely why groups like the Audubon Society has events like the Christmas Bird Count. It uses the large network of bird enthusiasts to collect data over a much larger time and area than a group of scientists could. Citizen scientists may not have the necessary training to properly analyze the data collected, but they have eyes, ears, and experience at a location that a scientist might not.

The crux of the problem isn't with the actual federal agencies attempting to list the species. The problem is quite a bit more complicated. The agencies (USFWS and NMFS) both absolutely know what species should be listed by the ESA. There are probably findings on the actual listing packages indicating they should be listed. Unfortunately to garner protection a recovery plan for the species needs to be developed. This is where logistics come into play.

The regulatory agencies have been handcuffed with embarrassingly inadequate funding for the better part of a decade. There are simply not enough people doing the work to EVER get it done. If any of you ever walked into a USFWS office and asked a regular staff biologist about their workload you would be amazed at the answers you would get.

The other part of the listing problem is while yes, petitions for listing are a good thing, places like the center for biological diversity will bulk list petitions forcing review of species without regard to actual need. The end result is 100 species that have a hard deadline for review with no ability to triage. That species that legitimately needs protection ASAP is clumped with a species that is in far less peril, yet legally they all fall in the same group with the same date.

There are other factors, but I'll just call them congressional inquiries and let you figure out the rest.

I would reword the opening sentence to read, "The image of the ubiquitous polar bear lumbering across melting sheets of ice..." The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. Let's not let petty facts get in the way of a social agenda, shall we?

just because a species may go extinct doesn't mean we want to keep it. I can think of lots of species we would be better off without.

This would be fine if natural selection is the only player without human involved. Let the strong survive. Please name a few endangered species you think we can eliminate without causing problem to the food chain.

Panda? I'd assume that any species that's numbered in the tens or hundreds could probably go away with minimal ecological impact at this point.

I would reword the opening sentence to read, "The image of the ubiquitous polar bear lumbering across melting sheets of ice..." The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. Let's not let petty facts get in the way of a social agenda, shall we?

Right, which is why you shouldn't let the fact that the population rebounded from an era of unrestricted hunting get in the way of pushing whatever agenda you seem to be trying to push.

just because a species may go extinct doesn't mean we want to keep it. I can think of lots of species we would be better off without.

This would be fine if natural selection is the only player without human involved. Let the strong survive. Please name a few endangered species you think we can eliminate without causing problem to the food chain.

Panda? I'd assume that any species that's numbered in the tens or hundreds could probably go away with minimal ecological impact at this point.

Damn, not those cute bears. Well, even though panda are herbivores, and aren't in any danger of any predator (Because the main reason for panda to becoming extinct is that the people in China are hurting too many of them down before), so yes, if they die, not many animals will be affected by it, but then again, a niche comes haywire, and so it will all get messed up.

just because a species may go extinct doesn't mean we want to keep it. I can think of lots of species we would be better off without.

This would be fine if natural selection is the only player without human involved. Let the strong survive. Please name a few endangered species you think we can eliminate without causing problem to the food chain.

Panda? I'd assume that any species that's numbered in the tens or hundreds could probably go away with minimal ecological impact at this point.

Damn, not those cute bears. Well, even though panda are herbivores, and aren't in any danger of any predator (Because the main reason for panda to becoming extinct is that the people in China are hurting too many of them down before), so yes, if they die, not many animals will be affected by it, but then again, a niche comes haywire, and so it will all get messed up.

I though Pandas were going extinct cause they really really really don't like Sex.

The problem with identifying at-risk species is that we don't seem to make the distinction between species that are at-risk because of human activity and those that are at-risk because of normal evolution. It makes no sense whatever to try and save a species that is going extinct because of normal evolutionary pressure (unless it's humans -- call me a species-ist if you want).

I would reword the opening sentence to read, "The image of the ubiquitous polar bear lumbering across melting sheets of ice..." The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. Let's not let petty facts get in the way of a social agenda, shall we?

Right, which is why you shouldn't let the fact that the population rebounded from an era of unrestricted hunting get in the way of pushing whatever agenda you seem to be trying to push.

Regardless of the conditions of the period, data sets from 50 years ago can't be put next to data collected now unless there is some understanding of how accurate the data collected then was. You are comparing population estimates with tremendous differences in available technology. Further, you are falling into the trap of assuming that the historical baseline of the species is close to resembling what it is now. If the population fell to 5% of its historical capacity and has rebounded to 8% has a population really recovered? Lastly, assuming that the period of 50 years is significant enough to conclude the risk of extinction without analyzing survival rates, time to become reproductive, and lifespan to name a few things would be a mistake.

just because a species may go extinct doesn't mean we want to keep it. I can think of lots of species we would be better off without.

Reductions in biodiversity are rarely beneficial, perhaps you could name those species which you think we would be better off without.

Mosquitoes. HIV. Plasmodium (malaria). Ebola.

Need I go on?

Which of those are endangered?

Now this is a good point, there is very much an adverse selection process going on. Species we would like to go extinct are generally NOT the ones that are in danger of going extinct. However there are plenty of examples of species or subspecies we very much like to have kept around, but haven't.

Thinking about it, the only counterexample of a species we would like to go extinct which we've successfully driven extinct is smallpox.